Posted on 11/15/2004 3:39:36 PM PST by mrustow
If you're an Arab terrorist, the New York Times is willing to lie about the Geneva Conventions, in order to aid and bet you. But if you're a white American prisoner, as far as Times publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. and his lackeys are concerned, no punishment is too grisly to be meted out to you.
California prison officials have in recent years been guilty of showing mercy to white prisoners, and the Times will not stand for that. The California Department of Corrections racially segregates new prisoners with members of their own race for 60 days after their arrival in an institution. The reason for that practice is simple enough, but the Times can almost always be counted on to hide from or lie about the facts. Targeting white inmates for rape based on the color of their skin has long been a sport among the black (and to a lesser degree, Hispanic) prisoners who dominate so many prisons in this country, and who consider such racial attacks their birthright. And since such rapes are often committed by violent offenders who know they are HIV+, and result in the death of the victim through AIDS, they are thus a package deal of assault, rape, and murder.
The Times could care less. The Times' anonymous editorialist who wrote "Racial Segregation in Prison", in Sunday's edition opines, "The State of California says its policy, by which hundreds of thousands of prisoners were segregated last year, reduces violence in the cells. After 60 days, the state says it has enough information to decide whether particular inmates are dangerous. Of course, it is possible that the policy makes things worse. At oral argument, Justice John Paul Stevens asked what he called a 'stupid question': whether, if California wants to discourage racial gangs, it wouldn't make more sense to house prisoners with members of a different race."
Justice Stevens was being cute; he didn't for one moment think his question was stupid. Let's see. If we break up the tiny white minority of inmates in most maximum security California prisons, and pair them off with racist, ultraviolent, black and Hispanic gangbangers, will that discourage racial gangs or racial violence? In a word, Mr. Justice: No.
Last May, John Paul Stevens made much of his opposition to the death penalty. However, Stevens has no problem with the machinery of death when, in the hands of racist black and Hispanic prisoners, it inexorably grinds down the lives of white prisoners. Back to the Times: "The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the policy. It invoked a Supreme Court precedent, Turner v. Safley, giving prisons broad authority in how they handle their inmates. California produced little evidence to support its segregation policy, but the court accepted as "common sense" the notion that there is a connection between segregating prisoners and combating violence."
The far-left "Ninth Circus" showed some humanity! Well, we can't have that, can we? The Times editorialist is exploiting a peculiar institution of contemporary discourse. Socialists and communists like Pinch Sulzberger have for forty years demonized anyone who talks in explicitly racial terms, unless he is seeking to provide racial advantages to blacks. Speaking in explicitly racial terms about black racism or black social pathologies, as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan learned almost 40 years ago, gets one shouted down as a "racist," and booted out of polite society. And so, the California prison officials didn't dare mention the 800-pound gorilla of race in the courtroom, a reticence which the Times editorialist then exploited with, "California produced little evidence to support its segregation policy ..."
The Times: "The Ninth Circuit should have been far more skeptical. The courts have long applied 'strict scrutiny,' an onerous legal standard, to racial classifications. The Ninth Circuit wants to carve out an exception for prisons. But given the history of racial discrimination in American penology, from segregated prisons and work farms to chain gangs, the courts should be highly demanding in reviewing racial policies behind bars.
"This case might be harder if California prisons used racial segregation rarely, and only in response to serious threats or instances of racially motivated violence. But a blanket policy that separates all new prisoners on the basis of race is unconstitutional."
This is the usual Times hypocrisy, where race is concerned. When a policy racially advantages blacks and disadvantages whites, the Times supports blanket policies, and opposes all scrutiny. And the California policy is of course in response to "serious threats or instances of racially motivated violence." What the Times writer really means, is that where white victims are concerned, nothing counts as a "serious threat" or as "racially motivated violence." And we can safely ignore the Times' reference to "the history of racial discrimination in American penology," which is just the sort of blanket statement that the writer already condemned. (But it's a blanket statement in favor of black privilege.) Whenever the Times proposes some sort of outrageous notion regarding race, it drags out "the history of racial discrimination."
(Times op-ed columnist and racial newsroom enforcer, Bob Herbert, did just that on August 20, in "Voting While Black," when he argued that for Florida state police detectives to interview elderly black witnesses in the latter's homes while armed, as part of an election fraud investigation, constituted racial intimidation.
"The officers were armed and in plain clothes. For elderly African-American voters, who remember the terrible torment inflicted on blacks who tried to vote in the South in the 1950's and 60's, the sight of armed police officers coming into their homes to interrogate them about voting is chilling indeed.")
Prison rape is such a serious problem that Human Rights Watch, of all organizations, devoted a study to it in 2001: No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons, a study which cited the racial rape of white prisoners as a serious problem.
"Past studies have documented the prevalence of black on white sexual aggression in prison.(213) These findings are further confirmed by Human Rights Watch's own research. Overall, our correspondence and interviews with white, black, and Hispanic inmates convince us that white inmates are disproportionately targeted for abuse.(214) Although many whites reported being raped by white inmates, black on white abuse appears to be more common. To a much lesser extent, non-Hispanic whites also reported being victimized by Hispanic inmates."
The Human Rights Watch report helped bring about the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, which Sunday's editorialist appears to have plum forgotten about. Normally, the Times loves federal laws, but as far as Sulzberger & Co. are concerned, in cases of racial conflict, whites are not to benefit from federal legislation.
Sunday's editorial was not the first venture into the issue of prison violence by the Times editorial page. On September 7, editorial board member Brent Staples wrote a signed editorial, "Fighting the AIDS Epidemic by Issuing Condoms in the Prisons," calling for the distribution of condoms in prison, as a surefire way to curb AIDS. Yep, that'll do it. When a prisoner is about to be raped, all he'll have to have to do is request that his attacker don a condom.
Staples left out that little matter of so much prison sex being a matter of rape. (He mentioned prison rape in passing, only to go back to his spiel, which implicitly denied its significance, and did not mention its often racial character.)
"The connection between the prison experience and the spread of AIDS outside prison is especially clear in poor communities, where a great many men spend time behind bars at some point in their lives. But with millions of people regularly exposed to H.I.V. in the prison system, the entire country has both a moral and a medical obligation to confront the sexual realities of prison life.
"Until then, lives will be lost and prison-borne diseases will continue to spread from the corrections system into the community at large."
Too bad Brent Staples refuses "to confront the sexual realities of prison life."
The only thing worse than the Times neglecting a serious social problem, is the Times devoting space to it.
I blame the prison officials for creating such an atmosphere of violence. Prisons should be punishment and rehabilitation not for blood sport.
I rankles me no end when people say 'he could care less' when they mean 'he is totally indifferent'...these public school educations these days...of course, I could care more about the whole situation...
Ah, but their day is coming and it's likely to be quite, uhm, uncomfortable for them.
LOL!!!
No inmate should illicitly benefit from another inmates incarceration. The PC crowd has turned prisons into gulags for whites.
That was no accident; confusion is their stock in trade.
But haven't you heard? Their routine now, is to claim that the Democrat history of racism, slavery, and Jim Crow was actually the GOP history. Ask black folks, and they'll tell you that Lincoln was a Democrat.
Yup. They're not opposed to racism; they love racism!
BTTT
Bumpbackatcha!
How's it going, Dennis?
Colored condoms would also help.
Flavored too.
LOL! Every human problem could be solved, "if only ..." How about we stop calling people socialists, and instead call them "ifonlies"?
You're right. I've read that the guards -- excuse me, they now insist on being called "corrections officers," shower the rape victims with contempt.
Is going .... good.
Sometimes the guards have a vested interest in keeping the prisoners at eachother's throats. I really do think there's an urgent need for reform. I used to attend a church that did prison ministry with Chuck Colson. If I was a warden, I'd absolutely ban the muslim religion AND all it's wacky permutations in the Nation of Islam, Five Percenters,etc. Nothing else works but christian ministry in prison. If that sounds intolerant, I apologize but it's true.
I agree with you, but I don't think a ban on the NOI would hold up in court, unless you could show that in a particular prison, they were a criminal conspiracy, and even then, you'd better have shopped for a moderate-to-conservative judge. The Fice Percenters are seasier, because they themselves deny that they are a religion. Meanwhile, the ACLU insists that the Five Percenters be treated as a religion in prison, which tells you erverything you ever wanted to know about the ACLU.
The New York Times must be destroyed.
NYT.DEL.EST
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.